Crown argues coincidences point to Teskey
Even though no one actually saw Leo Teskey brutally assault a city landlord, leaving the elderly man in a near-vegetative state, a remarkable list of coincidences points directly at the accused, the Crown argued yesterday.
“There is a constellation of evidence that so coincidently comes together that it can point to no other reasonable inference being drawn,” prosecutor Kevin Mott told court during yesterday’s closing arguments.
But he also admitted that the case against Teskey has several red flags, including a person of interest that police stopped investigating when a witness came forward with information that led to Teskey’s arrest.
Charged with brutally attacking Dougald Miller seven years ago, Teskey was convicted of the assault in 2002.
Earlier in the retrial, a tenant in Miller’s building testified that he saw Teskey at the bottom of a stairwell the morning of the attack. When he returned from work that evening, there was blood on the floors and on the walls.
The tenant later identified the accused in a photo line-up and again during his first trial in 2002, but couldn’t identify him on the stand last week.
Defence lawyer Deborah Hatch argued that the sole witness that places Teskey at the scene of the crime isn’t enough to convict him of the assault. While Teskey’s fingerprint was found in the building, it could have been placed there months earlier, she said.
“Many honest eyewitnesses have been mistaken in many cases with tragic results,” she said.
Outside the courthouse, Lesley Miller said she’s still convinced Teskey attacked her husband, especially since he didn’t testify in his own defence.
“Why would an innocent man spend seven years in prison and never say once, ‘I’m going to go on the stand and tell where I was?’” she said.
Judge Eric Peterson reserved his decision to Feb. 8, 2008.